## Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 1 of 2  **Page 18:** The first paragraph of this section would be clearer, if the sentence that begins, “On August 17, 2001, EPA granted...” were moved in between the succeeding two sentences, so that the discussion is presented chronologically. Also, this section notably d oes not discuss EPA’s March 21, 2011, announcement to reconsider the final rule issued on that same date. It would be helpful for the public to have that more recent history, including the petitions for reconsideration that EPA received, in addition to th e background information that is presented.

 **Page 21:** The preamble here states that EPA is “granting reconsideration” of the certain issues in the petitions it has received. It would be helpful if EPA presented a list of all of the issues that were raised in the petitions for reconsideration and provided an explanation for why EPA is not granting reconsideration for some. Additionally, EPA should consider explaining the whether the petitions raised any issues beyond those identified by EPA when it initiat ed reconsideration of the final rule on March 21, 2011.

 What is the difference between item #5 in list of provisions identified in the March 21, 2011, notice of reconsideration (“revisions to the carbon monoxide monitoring requirements”) and item #2 ident ified in the list at the bottom of page 21 (“the removal of continuous carbon monoxide monitoring with CO CEMS requirements”)?

 **Page 22:** To preserve its discretion to consider and respond to comments, EPA should consider revising the phrase “will not” in t he last sentence of the last paragraph of Section B to “do not intend to”.

 **Page 29:** At the end of the section discussing energy recovery units, EPA notes that it has used the same methodology as in the final rule for establishing emission limits and is not taking comment on this methodology. EPA makes similar statements regarding its methodology for calculating emissions limits with respect to waste
- burning kilns (p. 30) and the revised dioxin/furan limits (p. 55). Can EPA please clarify how it can take comment on the revised emissions limits without taking comment on the methodology?

 **Page 78:** In discussing the water and solid waste impacts of the proposed rule, EPA estimates that an annual requirement of 90 billion gallons per year of additional wate r would be required as a result of operating additional controls or increased sorbent use. How is this impact distributed geographically; for example, does EPA expect the impact to be in arid regions of the country? What are the costs of drawing down fre shwater resources, particularly in arid areas, on agriculture, drinking water supplies and ecosystem health? What are the actual monetary costs of treating the water once it is used? This impact should be at least qualitatively discussed if it is diffi cult to monetize. Can EPA provide a more detailed analysis to determine the potential for localized adverse impacts on water availability?

## Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 2 of 2 **Additionally, we suggest the following minor typographical and grammatical corrections:**

 **Page 18:** Consider revi sing this sentence as shown: “The EPA’s request ed for a voluntary remand of the final CISWI rule was taken to allow the EPA to address concerns related to the EPA’s procedures for establishing MACT floors for CISWI units in light of the Court’s decision in Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 F.3d 855 (DC Cir. 2001)(Cement Kiln).”

 **Page 55:** There appears to be an extra per iod or missing text in the last sentence on page 55 (“Therefore. , we are not accepting comment on the emission limit calculation methodology.”).

 Instructions for Item 13 on page 189 says to both add and remove paragraph (g). Paragraph (g) is in being adde d but there was no pre
- 2011 paragraph (g) to remove.  Paragraph 60.2141(l)(1)(vi) on page 211 references entire paragraph 60.7(c) and specific subparagraphs of (c) which seem odd. Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance with the general requirements of §60.7(b),(c), (c)(1), (c)(4), (d), (e), (f), and (g).  Numbering format of subparagraphs of 60.2230(b) on pages 252 and 253 use (i) through (v) but should be (1) through (5).  Table 7 to Subpart CCCC on page 284. The span value for SO2 need s to be increased. **Appendix B –**  **Rankings_101911.xls**  There appears to be some discrepancy in the total population of units for several categories. In many cases, the number of units in the sample appears to be too large, based on the units listed in the above Excel spreadsheet. This has resulted in an incorrect number of units being used in the MACT floor calculation. In addition, when a calculation to determine the number of floor units resulted in a non
- integer, the result was rounded up. These are s hown in the table below.

Sample population (EPA spreadsheet) # of units in

floor (12%) Sample

population (correct value) # of units in

floor (12%) Kilns 23 3 (2.76 rounded up) 20 2 (2.4) ERU – solids 26 4 (3.12 rounded up) 20 2 (2.4) ERU – biomass 21 3 (2.52 rounded up) 18 2 (2.16) Incinerators None given 4 21 2 (2.52) Small remote units 14 2 11 1 (1.32)